9/11 Conspiracy Thread

[Rasputin_Vol]

For the controlled demolition people:

If it was a controlled demo, why did both towers begin to collapse at the point where they were impacted by the planes?

No planes hit WTC 7, and it fell completely just like the Twin Towers.

 

[LouderVol]

No planes hit WTC 7, and it fell completely just like the Twin Towers.

is it weird that steel construction with heat and structural damage collapse similar to another steel construction that also had heat and structural damage?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

f=ma

m: The mass in this case is all of the floors above the floor that failed and then including each additional floor that failed.

a: The acceleration is of the mass mentioned above. Gravitational acceleration = 9.8 meters/second^2

What's the force big guy?

What's the shear force failure rating for the clips holding each floor?

Using your information above, ask yourself, did the acceleration of the floors above change once it collapsed onto the floor below? There are only two possib answers. The acceleration either decreased or remained constant (9.8 m/s^2).

If you believe that the acceleration would remain constant throughout this entire series of collisions, then you've just violated Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. When one body exerts a force on another. The second body applies an equal and opposite force on the first.

And let's not forget, acceleration has a time component, also. If acceleration is decreasing after each impact, what does that say about the denominator (distance/time^2). Is it increasing or decreasing? Would this be equal to or less than g (9.8m/s^2)?

 

[Orangedogsrule]

No planes hit WTC 7, and it fell completely just like the Twin Towers.

Aaaaaaaannd ....... SO WHAT!!??

That is a rediculously meaningless statement conveying no understanding of the mechanisms of failure of the buildings.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Using your information above, ask yourself, did the acceleration of the floors above change once it collapsed onto the floor below? There are only two possibly answers. It the acceleration either decreased or remained constant (9.8 m/s^2).

If you believe that the acceleration would remain constant throughout this entire series of collisions, then you'very just violated Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. When one body exerts a force on another. The second body applies an equal and opposite force on the first.

And let's not forget, acceleration has a time component, also. If acceleration is decreasing after each impact, what does that say about the denominator (distance/time^2). Is it increasing or decreasing? Would this be equal to or less than g (9.8m/s^2)?

Meaningless in the context to which you are trying to assert it.

 

[LouderVol]

Using your information above, ask yourself, did the acceleration of the floors above change once it collapsed onto the floor below? There are only two possibly answers. It the acceleration either decreased or remained constant (9.8 m/s^2).

If you believe that the acceleration would remain constant throughout this entire series of collisions, then you'very just violated Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. When one body exerts a force on another. The second body applies an equal and opposite force on the first.

And let's not forget, acceleration has a time component, also. If acceleration is decreasing after each impact, what does that say about the denominator (distance/time^2). Is it increasing or decreasing? Would this be equal to or less than g (9.8m/s^2)?

as usual a couple things.

While it might lose net acceleration at each floor it is picking up mass. so the force is still there, and I would argue the mass part of the equation is a bigger driver than gravity is.

also just because acceleration decreases that doesn't mean the speed decreases with it. so no you wouldn't necessarily see a difference. especially as it is going through a similar cycle. free fall for 10ft, hit resistance acceleration (not speed) decreases for that 1/2 second it takes to fail then it free falls for another 10ft, hits the next floor slows down for 1/2 second, repeated for 100ish floors. so there shouldn't be a difference in the time it takes for it to collapse between floors. also I have no idea what it is but there is also a terminal velocity factor that would keep it from accelerating to the end.

again at some point even steel has a critical failure where it offers *basically* zero resistance. the floors with all that mass probably reaches that point pretty quickly.

 

[hndog609]

Using your information above, ask yourself, did the acceleration of the floors above change once it collapsed onto the floor below? There are only two possibly answers. It the acceleration either decreased or remained constant (9.8 m/s^2).

If you believe that the acceleration would remain constant throughout this entire series of collisions, then you'very just violated Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. When one body exerts a force on another. The second body applies an equal and opposite force on the first.

And let's not forget, acceleration has a time component, also. If acceleration is decreasing after each impact, what does that say about the denominator (distance/time^2). Is it increasing or decreasing? Would this be equal to or less than g (9.8m/s^2)?

It's all here. (among God knows how many other places)

NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: How Does a Building Crush Itself?

and

NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: The Towers' Collapse: Fast, But <i>Not</i> Freefall

 

[Orangedogsrule]

as usual a couple things.

While it might lose net acceleration at each floor it is picking up mass. so the force is still there, and I would argue the mass part of the equation is a bigger driver than gravity is.

also just because acceleration decreases that doesn't mean the speed decreases with it. so no you wouldn't necessarily see a difference. especially as it is going through a similar cycle. free fall for 10ft, hit resistance acceleration (not speed) decreases for that 1/2 second it takes to fail then it free falls for another 10ft, hits the next floor slows down for 1/2 second, repeated for 100ish floors. so there shouldn't be a difference in the time it takes for it to collapse between floors. also I have no idea what it is but there is also a terminal velocity factor that would keep it from accelerating to the end.

again at some point even steel has a critical failure where it offers *basically* zero resistance. the floors with all that mass probably reaches that point pretty quickly.

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation | NIST

11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?



NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC

2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

 

[Hayezb]

Believe this.

911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 - YouTube

Three things I still have issues with..

1.) The only footage we have isn't all that great because it only takes still shots. But if you break down 3 of the shots it doesn't look like a plane to me. Maximize the video and grab the timeline indicator to move it second by second.

Pentagon Security Camera video from 9/11 - YouTube

1:24 - Shot 1 is just before the object enters the frame.

1:26 - Shot 2 is right when the object comes into view. The white object is not a 757, it's entirely too small. Not even debatable really.

1:27 - Shot 3 is the explosion.

2.) There is absolutely no way that is the only security footage. Why won't they release other videos and put this to rest?

3.) If it was the plane we are told, there is no chance that some random terrorist was able to fly at that altitude like it supposedly did. So who really flew the plane? This is according to a family member that flew KC-135As so I'm sticking with his word on the ability of a non professional pilot.

 

[ajvol01]

Using your information above, ask yourself, did the acceleration of the floors above change once it collapsed onto the floor below? There are only two possib answers. The acceleration either decreased or remained constant (9.8 m/s^2).

If you believe that the acceleration would remain constant throughout this entire series of collisions, then you've just violated Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. When one body exerts a force on another. The second body applies an equal and opposite force on the first.

And let's not forget, acceleration has a time component, also. If acceleration is decreasing after each impact, what does that say about the denominator (distance/time^2). Is it increasing or decreasing? Would this be equal to or less than g (9.8m/s^2)?

Mass is increasing buddy.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

as usual a couple things.

While it might lose net acceleration at each floor it is picking up mass. so the force is still there, and I would argue the mass part of the equation is a bigger driver than gravity is.

Keep in mind, the mass is increasing. You are correct in that part. However, the time is increasing at time^2. Therefore, the force (ma) has an mass increasing in a linear fashion while the time is increasing in a nonlinera/exponential fashion. So the time would have greater influence and be a bigger driver than the mass.

 

[LouderVol]

Keep in mind, the mass is increasing. You are correct in that part. However, the time is increasing at time^2. Therefore, the force (ma) has an mass increasing in a linear fashion while the time is increasing in a nonlinera/exponential fashion. So the time would have greater influence and be a bigger driver than the mass.

but the delta of the time itself is minimal. the first couple floors are already compromised so they aren't going to slow it down much. and then once you have got a couple floors it becomes too much even for compromised floors.

 

[hndog609]

Keep in mind, the mass is increasing. You are correct in that part. However, the time is increasing at time^2. Therefore, the force (ma) has an mass increasing in a linear fashion while the time is increasing in a nonlinera/exponential fashion. So the time would have greater influence and be a bigger driver than the mass.

THE MATH WORKS WHEN YOU DO ALL OF IT.

NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: The Towers' Collapse: Fast, But <i>Not</i> Freefall

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

but the delta of the time itself is minimal. the first couple floors are already compromised so they aren't going to slow it down much. and then once you have got a couple floors it becomes too much even for compromised floors.

But you do at least acknowledge that the mass will slow down after each collision.

And at this point, we only disagree now on how much the structural integrity of the rest of the building was compromised. Most here are of the belief that the Twin Towers were compromised significantly after the plane crash and fires for the entire length of the building. My assertion is that only the floors within a certain range were significantly compromised by the crash and fire.

 

[LouderVol]

But you do at least acknowledge that the mass will slow down after each collision.

And at this point, we only disagree now on how much the structural integrity of the rest of the building was compromised. Most here are of the belief that the Twin Towers were compromised significantly after the plane crash and fires for the entire length of the building. My assertion is that only the floors within a certain range were significantly compromised by the crash and fire.

I would agree only a certain number of floors were impacted by the crash and weakened. My stance is that once the collapse got to those levels it was a moot point, they steel wasn't going to slow them down.

I would say the first couple of floors might have been slowed down, as in speed/velocity. after that it is a matter of possibly decreasing acceleration, but there would still be acceleration. and you would quickly get to a floor that had minimal resistance to offer compared to the force being applied so the delta in acceleration would be nonexistent. and I am saying an acceleration of 9.78999m/s vs 9.8m/s. something stupid low to the point of being an exercise in banality. maybe not the most correct term to use but it seems to fit.

 

[UT-Rex]

This is stupid.

And so, I take it you thought the original experiment was and intelligent comparison:

"So for science try this one on for size. Stand straight up. Have someone slam a baseball bat into your head. See how long before you collapse."

 

[ETV]

Sarcasm? Looked pretty legit to me. :dance2:

Yep, it's completely legit.

More proof? Here ya' go.

 

[hndog609]

But you do at least acknowledge that the mass will slow down after each collision.

And at this point, we only disagree now on how much the structural integrity of the rest of the building was compromised. Most here are of the belief that the Twin Towers were compromised significantly after the plane crash and fires for the entire length of the building. My assertion is that only the floors within a certain range were significantly compromised by the crash and fire.

Since people apparently can't be bothered to read links here's an excerpt. There's lots more but hopefully this will at least be enough to encourage people to look.

 

[UT-Rex]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Pickens View Post
I don't buy any of the conspiracy garbage at all.

Most folk have enough savvy not to. This I think is a situation where the opinion of the vast majority of the hard science professionals, in every dicipline, carries the day.

The AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction), The AWS (American Welding Society), The NFPA (National Fire Protection Association), etc.and so on...ALL agree.

Well, within just minutes (60-120) of the initial incident, it wasn't a "conspiracy" -- it was investigation and of evidence per many eyewitnesses.

Why do some want to discredit the eyewitness and 1st-responder reports?

Apparently the thinking by these witnesses was, this time it was bombs (like, 93?) + planes / no reason at that time to think conspiracy, but ALL reason to think planes + explosives --

"So, 2 planes AND exploooosives that were IN the building, is that correct?"
"(yes) That is the working theory at this point."

Of course, while the witnesses explain it that the explosions were a result of what they believed to be explosive devices, the other side explains it as if the explosions heard were merely sounds of the collapse (e.g. air and noise from collapse rushing down the shafts).

"We understand there has been a secondary explosion on tower 2" (the first to fall).
"Collapsed, because of a 3rd explosion."
"About an hour later after that, there was a huge explosion at the base of the south tower."

"... as if they planned to take down bldg; boom boom boom boom" " yeah, detonated" (firefighters, speaking about explosives, not consipiracy).

"boom boom boom ... just like 20 straight hits (down the bldg)...I sat there and watched (from outside the bldg); it just started going 'pop" light firecrackers" (again, he's not speaking in terms of conspiracy, but rather in terms of explosives).

 

[Pacer92]

Not sure on either honestly.

Do you think that damage was caused by a Boeing 757? For me it's pretty obvious it wasn't.

The most highly guarded, videotaped building in America...and that's the only video evidence they can produce?

Pretty obvious to me as well...

 

[LouderVol]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Pickens View Post
I don't buy any of the conspiracy garbage at all.



Well, within just minutes (60-120) of the initial incident, it wasn't a "conspiracy" -- it was investigation and of evidence per many eyewitnesses.

Why do some want to discredit the eyewitness and 1st-responder reports?

Apparently the thinking by these witnesses was, this time it was bombs (like, 93?) + planes / no reason at that time to think conspiracy, but ALL reason to think planes + explosives --

"So, 2 planes AND exploooosives that were IN the building, is that correct?"
"(yes) That is the working theory at this point."

Of course, while the witnesses explain it that the explosions were a result of what they believed to be explosive devices, the other side explains it as if the explosions heard were merely sounds of the collapse (e.g. air and noise from collapse rushing down the shafts).

"We understand there has been a secondary explosion on tower 2" (the first to fall).
"Collapsed, because of a 3rd explosion."
"About an hour later after that, there was a huge explosion at the base of the south tower."

"... as if they planned to take down bldg; boom boom boom boom" " yeah, detonated" (firefighters, speaking about explosives, not consipiracy).

"boom boom boom ... just like 20 straight hits (down the bldg)...I sat there and watched (from outside the bldg); it just started going 'pop" light firecrackers" (again, he's not speaking in terms of conspiracy, but rather in terms of explosives).

Transformers etc. we have been over this too

if it was explosives at the bottom why did it collapse a level at a time?

people are terrible witnesses and your own quotes offer the explanation.

 

[05_never_again]

No planes hit WTC 7, and it fell completely just like the Twin Towers.

That's a nice goalpost move. We can talk about WTC 7, which is a separate topic. But how about addressing my initial question?

 

[Orangedogsrule]

But you do at least acknowledge that the mass will slow down after each collision.

And at this point, we only disagree now on how much the structural integrity of the rest of the building was compromised. Most here are of the belief that the Twin Towers were compromised significantly after the plane crash and fires for the entire length of the building. My assertion is that only the floors within a certain range were significantly compromised by the crash and fire.

NO! It will NOT slow.

Imagine you and a buddy. Assume you're two big strong men in New York City with a piano moving business. You two can pick up a piano from the back of your truck and move it to a pulley system. Its rigged from the roof of a building to the sidewalk. When the piano is beside a window made ready 5 floors up (50ft) you pull it in and set it up. Its a windy day.

So, you two are working together pulling that piano up. Its 20feet in the air and a heavy gust starts it swinging, even though you aren't directly under it, the rope breaks as the piano swings and it lands right on top of both of you.

Greasy spots on a dirty sidewalk is all you'd be.

But hey, you two could pick up that piano!

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

I am sure this will be dismissed because these scientists are skeptical. Because we all know, anyone who questions the NIST report obviously doesnt know what they are talking about.

 

[LouderVol]

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

I am sure this will be dismissed because these scientists are skeptical. Because we all know, anyone who questions the NIST report obviously doesnt know what they are talking about.

Bunch of things here.

1. thanks for bringing this up AGAIN.
2. This report does little to actually dismiss or argue NISTs findings, they only present other alternatives.
3. the things they do argue they don't back up with numbers which NIST has.
4. They even mention that the fire in the building would have been hot enough to cause failure 660 degrees.
5. the fire insulation was being replaced in the building as what was there was not sufficient. what was there was mechanically attached which doesn't meet code. there wasn't spray applied as is needed.
6. Hilarious that the engineer who designed it believes the only thing to take it down would be demo. This is a case of orangedogs Masters of Disaster. Someone that confident has not built enough buildings to be taken seriously or is putting on a brave face for something.
7. they mention redundancy, the only redundancy that would have mattered is if there was another clip system. there literally couldn't be. I would really like to know what they are claiming is actually redundant.
8. the one chart they do show doesn't take into any consideration any of the damage done. how could it? so them saying a floor would stop another is once again looking at the strongest case and saying "See it would hold up".
9. Their measurements on the fall are based on videos which they admit you can't tell the difference in the change in acceleration because of the quality of video.
10. without being able to do their own investigation I have no idea where these guys are pulling their assumptions from. It really boils down to they didn't like NISTs report so they went and found answers they were looking for instead of looking for the truth.